On 07/12/2019 05:42 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 5:59 AM Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote: >> On 07/12/2019 08:03 AM, Yonghong Song wrote: >>> On 7/10/19 11:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >>>> BTF size resolution logic isn't always resolving type size correctly, >>>> leading >>>> to erroneous map creation failures due to value size mismatch. >>>> >>>> This patch set: >>>> 1. fixes the issue (patch #1); >>>> 2. adds tests for trickier cases (patch #2); >>>> 3. and converts few test cases utilizing BTF-defined maps, that previously >>>> couldn't use typedef'ed arrays due to kernel bug (patch #3). >>>> >>>> Patch #1 can be applied against bpf tree, but selftest ones (#2 and #3) >>>> have >>>> to go against bpf-next for now. >>> >>> Why #2 and #3 have to go to bpf-next? bpf tree also accepts tests, >>> AFAIK. Maybe leave for Daniel and Alexei to decide in this particular case. >> >> Yes, corresponding test cases for fixes are also accepted for bpf tree, >> thanks. > > Thanks for merging, Daniel! My thinking was that at the time I posted > patch set, BTF-defined map tests weren't yet merged into bpf, so I > assumed it has to go against bpf-next.
Not yet merged given the minor change needed resulting from Yonghong's feedback. Thanks, Daniel
